G.R. No.

L-27031 May 31, 1974

The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee
VS. Loreto Renegado y Senora, accused-appellant

FACTS: September 4, 1966 Mamerto de Lira, a teacher of Tiburcio Tancinco Memorial Vocational
School died at Calbayog City General Hospital due to the stab of accused few days earlier. He
was charged for Murder with assault upon a person in authority. August 29 within the school,
armed with a bladed weapon, accused with the intent to kill, assaulted the teacher who was at
that time in the performance of his duty or on the occasion of such. The accused claimed he
has lost his sense during the moment of stabbing, and right after he wounded the deceased,
accused regained his consciousness. Accused also provided an evidence that sometime in June
1950, he was clubbed in the forehead by Antonio Redema and was treated by Dr. J.P. Rosales
for head injury. Since that particular time accused would have fits of violent temper resulting to
the maltreatment of his wife and children for no reason at all, and asks forgiveness for he lost
his head. He claimed that the injury before produced ill-effects.

ISSUE: Should the accused be exempt from criminal liability on the grounds of insanity or mental
sickness.

RULING: YES. The court affirms the conviction of the lower court, however the decision was modified.
The court finds it incredible that during that crucial moment accused was unaware or
unconscious of what he was doing, only to regain consciousness right after the act of stabbing.
It is unusual for the accused to suddenly turn blank at the moment of stabbing the victim. No
evidence whatsoever, expert or otherwise shows that the accused is suffering from insanity or
mental sickness that impaired his memory. The maltreatment of his wife and children is not the
evidence that would prove he is indeed insane. At most such testimony shows he is a man of
violent temper and easily provoked. Hence the court finds the accused guilty.

First, the killing of Mamerto de Lira is qualified by evident pre meditation. From Friday to
Monday, the accused had enough time to contemplate his action and evil design. Although he
was pacified several times by several different people, still he proceeded with his revenge.
Appellants attempt to show he did not recall how the bladed weapon got there, it is futile.
There is no doubt that the act of appellant in bringing with him his knife to the canteen on
Monday morning was the culmination of his plan to revenge himself on Lira for the remark
made by the latter on Friday afternoon. Evident premeditation exists when sufficient time had
elapsed for the actor to reflect and allow his conscience to overcome his resolution to kill but
he persisted in his plan and carried it into effect. Here appellant Renegado had more or less
sixty four hours from Friday incident up to 9:30 oclock of Monday morning within which to
ponder over his plan and listen to the advice of his co-employees and of his own conscience,
and such length of time was more than sufficient for him to reflect on his intended revenge.
Second, treachery attended the killing of Lira because the latter, who was unarmed, was
stabbed from behind, was totally unaware of the coming attack, and was not in a position to
defend himself against it. There is treachery where the victim who was not armed was never in
a position to defend himself or offer resistance, nor to present risk or danger to the accused
when assaulted.

Third, the killing of Lira is complexed with assault upon person in authority. A teacher either of
a public or of a duly recognized private school is a person in authority under Art. 152 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 578.

The assault was committed on the occasion of such performance as provided by the Revised
Penal Code Article 148; because or by reason of the past performance of official duty, even
if at the very time of the assault no official duty was being discharged, inasmuch as evident
purpose of the Law is to allow public officials and their agents to discharge their official duties
without being hunted by the fear of being assaulted or injured by reason thereof.

Hence, in as much as the crime committed is murder with assault upon person in authority, the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender offset by aggravating circumstance of
treachery, the Death penalty imposed by the previous court, pursuant to Article 148 and 248 of
the Revised Penal Code. The court a quo, however in its decision recommends to the President
of the Republic the commutation of the death penalty to reclusion perpetual and the Solicitor
General * concurs with such recommendation. On the part of the court for lack of ten votes for
purposes of imposing death sentence, the penalty next lower in degree, is reclusion perpetua,
is to be imposed and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of twelve thousand
(P12,000.00) pesos and to pay the costs. Decision modified.